Phyllis Young

Ruled that unless disclosure is required by state law or court decisions, there is no denial of due process of law when a court considers the presentence report (PSR) without disclosing its contents to the defendant and giving the opportunity for rebuttal.

Resulted in the sentencing law was changed to require aggravating circumstances that might lead to sentencing enhancements be proved to a jury.

Resulted in the Supreme Court concluding that a fact increasing the mandatory minimum, but not extending the sentence beyond the statutory maximum, need not be alleged in the indictment, submitted to the jury, or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Resulted in a combined decision with another case stating that federal judges must take guidelines into account when sentencing, but are not required to impose a sentence within the range prescribed by the guidelines.

Resulted in California’s determining sentencing law violated a defendant’s right to trial by jury as it placed sentence-elevating fact finding within the province of the judges.

Resulted in, “an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction” being valid to enhance punishment for a subsequent conviction.

Resulted in sentences imposed by a federal judge were not improper even though the judge based the sentences on estimated quantities, not actual quantities, and concluded the defendants “were involved in a vast drug conspiracy

Ruled that Congress had acted properly in delegating authority to the U.S. Sentencing Commission in the creation of sentencing guidelines.

Resulted in the Supreme Court limiting the fact finding authority of state judges in sentencing decisions.

Ruled that probation cannot be revoked without following the seven elements of due process.